Episode of South Park that got cancelled

[zzyzzx]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006020708,00.html

Cruise axe for South Park



NERVOUS TV bosses have axed an episode of South Park which OUTS a fictional Tom Cruise character as gay — because they are scared the real actor will SUE.

The wacky cartoon shows Hollywood star Cruise refusing to come out of a closet in a reference to rumours about his sexuality.

His ex-wife Nicole Kidman and fellow Scientologist John Travolta are portrayed as trying to coax him out.

Nicole, 38, tells him: “Don’t you think this has gone on long enough?

“It’s time for you to come out of the closet. You’re not fooling anyone.”

The episode, called Trapped in the Closet, also features Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard criticising Cruise’s acting skills.

The episode is entirely fictional and there is no suggestion that the events are true.

It was shown in America last year but Cruise, 43, is believed to have threatened legal action if it is shown again.

So it will not be screened on the Paramount channel on Friday as planned. An insider said: “Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation.

“In the past year this has increased because he has been getting bad publicity over his over-the-top relationship with Katie Holmes.

“But Tom was said not to like the episode and Paramount just didn’t dare risk showing it again.

“It’s a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it’s very funny.”

[smearbrick1]

One of the best and most truthful (as far as the scientology part) of this season. Second only to either "Marjorine" or "Global Warming" (a tie for first).

[zzyzzx]

I hope they still put it on the DVD.

[Supreme2k]

The network execs may be scared, but the South Park crew isn't. They'll be putting that and the bleeding statue episode on DVD when that season comes out.

[lordsmurf]

Tom Cruise should be wearing a helmet, if you know what I mean.

I have a recording of this episode because of the scientology stuff. I show it to people when we all need a great big laugh.

[RottenFoxBreath]

if it went to court in america,wouldnt he have to prove that he isnt gay,in order to win.
and i have to say,that the "what scientology is,and what they believe happened" in that episode really does show what a f*cknut l ron hubbard was.

another big feckup i recently watched was in "the last samurai",making himself the same height as billy connolly,who is nearly a foot taller than tiny tom in real life.
great episode though,right up there in my top 5 of south park crackers.

[Faustus]

Damn and that was an awesome episode!

[smearbrick1]

The truly funny part is that they never once say that he is gay or may be gay. It is all innuendo.

[Forum Troll]

Cruise made an ass of himself, and this is what he gets. Besides, isn't the South Park ep protected under Freedom of Speech and parody rules?

[lordsmurf]

Cruise made an ass of himself, and this is what he gets. Besides, isn't the South Park ep protected under Freedom of Speech and parody rules?

Good point.

[Jester700]

There's no way the munchkin would win a suit, but that's not always what it's about in the USA. It would still be costly in terms of litigation. Of course, there is no bad publicity, and it seems to me the SP people could figure a way to turn the incident into a cash cow if it came to that.

[RottenFoxBreath]

yeh by whacking a big gay sticker on there big gay dvd box,stating that it includes the infamous big gay "come out of the closet,tom" episode. mmkaay!

[Supreme2k]

NERVOUS TV bosses...
... are scared the real actor will SUE.


It was shown in America last year but Cruise, 43, is believed to have threatened legal action if it is shown again.

TRANSLATION: "There have been no threats from TC or anyone even remotely connected to him, but we're just too pussy to risk it, especially since the cartoon TC already said that he'll sue."


I call bull and chicken shit

[Doramius]

An insider said: “Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation.

“In the past year this has increased because he has been getting bad publicity over his over-the-top relationship with Katie Holmes.

I'm sorry, I just got tears over the fact that he's trying to protect his reputation over this episode. Pick your battles Tom. You better stick with fighting the Paparazzi and Nicole.

[zzyzzx]

Anyone have an episode number or can say for sure what season this was aired in? I can't find it on their episode guide.

[smearbrick1]

It was the most recent season. It aired right before Christmas.

[Supreme2k]

just for you, zzyzzx

[zzyzzx]

Yes, it's the Trapped in the Closet episode gtom Nov 16, 2005. You would never guess that from the episode guide. Of course in about 4 years this will be available on DVD.

[Supreme2k]

Actually, it will be available early next year. Seasons 7 and 8 are due in April and October, respectively.

[doppletwo]

Cruise made an ass of himself, and this is what he gets. Besides, isn't the South Park ep protected under Freedom of Speech and parody rules?

Good point.

The USA Constitution doesn't apply in the UK.


Tom Cruise has sued people before in the UK for calling him gay.


In the UK you can sue for slander or liable.


The credits for that episode are all John Doe and Jane Doe.

[Doramius]

Here's the scoop. Tom Cruise isn't gay, but he acts like a fag in real life. He's been a profitable movie star, but he's a dips**t. He makes good movies and has a strong sense of what storylines and action plots are good, but has gotten a bit arrogant and self-centered. He's also gotten middle aged and is in his playful and expensive mood, but it's wrecked any fidelity and trust image and shows he's too cocky to control his own reality.

In short, Tom Cruise is a decent actor, who lost touch with reality. He's not a member of Mensa, is he? Sounds like he is.

[Supreme2k]

Cruise made an ass of himself, and this is what he gets. Besides, isn't the South Park ep protected under Freedom of Speech and parody rules?

Good point.

The USA Constitution doesn't apply in the UK.


Tom Cruise has sued people before in the UK for calling him gay.


In the UK you can sue for slander or liable.

Southpark isn't created in the U.K.

The USA Constitution most certainly applies when someone from the U.S. is trying to sue someone overseas over something that was created and distributed by people in the U.S.

Same way you can't arrest a person for breaking a law that applies to your state when they live in another state. (actually, that's exactly the case.)

[doppletwo]

Cruise made an ass of himself, and this is what he gets. Besides, isn't the South Park ep protected under Freedom of Speech and parody rules?

Good point.

The USA Constitution doesn't apply in the UK.


Tom Cruise has sued people before in the UK for calling him gay.


In the UK you can sue for slander or liable.

Southpark isn't created in the U.K.

The USA Constitution most certainly applies when someone from the U.S. is trying to sue someone overseas over something that was created and distributed by people in the U.S.

Same way you can't arrest a person for breaking a law that applies to your state when they live in another state. (actually, that's exactly the case.)

Please read the whole thread, before you go adding bold highlight to quotes of mine. Well at least read the first post in the thread.


Publishing it in the UK could get them sued. Broadcasting or allowing broadcast of your material is legally similar to publishing.


The USA most likely wouldn't extradite anyone over this, but if they ever went to the UK they could have to go to court or pay penalties, if already tried in absentia at the time.

Thanks,
4

[Supreme2k]

Please read the whole thread, before you go adding bold highlight to quotes of mine. Well at least read the first post in the thread.

Maybe highlight it in pink next time?

Publishing it in the UK could get them sued. Broadcasting or allowing broadcast of your material is legally similar to publishing.

Not the same.
Regardless, it's still protected. TC doesn't have the "loophole" of going after someone not attached to the Constitution.

The USA most likely wouldn't extradite anyone over this, but if they ever went to the UK they could have to go to court or pay penalties, if already tried in absentia at the time.

They wouldn't need to get the U.K. involved. Both the litigant (TC) and the defendant (Matt & Trey) are U.S. citizens.


Besides the fact that I'm arguing about a rag that is the UK equivalent of the ******* National Enquirer

[Forum Troll]

http://buffalobeast.com/91/50.htm

The BEAST 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005

40. Tom Cruise

Charges: Criminal narcissism. After mega-lawyer Bert Fields threatened to sue The BEAST over Cruise’s inclusion in last year’s Loathsome List, we responded by giving him the editorial finger, and bracing ourselves for the legal spanking of our lives. Instead, the episode seemed to trigger a cascading ego crisis, culminating in a rapid and irrecoverable image downgrade from exalted idol to ridiculous buffoon. From his laughable claim of psychological expertise to his worst acting performance ever—as a man in love—Cruise simply cracked up on camera in 2005, and a public hitherto willing to overlook his obsessively inauthentic personality and comical religious affiliation had finally had enough. Cruise is a perfect example of a person who is simultaneously in love with and completely unfamiliar with himself, living in perpetual fear of self-actualization, and asserting a legal right to live free of criticism. A guy who can do whatever the hell he wants, yet chooses to devote his life to maintaining the public perception that he is somebody else.

Exhibit A: “I care man, I care. I care about you. I care about your children. I care about these people here in this room. Every one of you. And I...I mean it. That is not just some words to me. That is a promise.” Seriously, can’t even act like a human being.

Sentence: A lifetime of forced, joyless sex with famously beautiful women, only to have his colossal gay porn library posthumously bequeathed to the Smithsonian by bitter, unloved offspring.

[adam]

Freedom of speech is NEVER a defense to slander or libel. These are unprotected forms of speech. The only true defense is proving that the statement or publication, respectively, was truthful.

Parody is a defense to slander or libel in the sense that it can negate one of the requirements. To prove either slander or libel you have to prove that the statement or publication, respectively, is 1) untrue 2) injurious to the reputation of the individual, and in the case of public personas (Cruise definitely counts) 3) that it was made with malice. Arguing that it is a parody is arguing that it is not injurious to their reputation because it cannot be taken seriously...its just obviously a joke, and that it was not made with malice since, again its just a joke. I suppose you could also use it to attack the notion that the statement is untrue. Joking about someone being gay does not necessarily mean you are calling them gay.

Tabloids have been successfully sued for libel for claiming that a celebrity is gay. I think an obvious parody like South Park would get off the hook but getting sued is still no fun and it can definitely be costly even if you win.

[enstg8er]

suing tabloids seems to be much more common in england than the states. perhaps they have a different legal standard. tabloids here could claim in court the article was satire or parody and probably get by. although it would be risky for one to openly declare itself as satire. it would be like wrestling admiting to be staged...

[mattso]

Freedom of speech is NEVER a defense to slander or libel. These are unprotected forms of speech.

That sucks. People who put themselves in the limelight deserve ridicule, in my books. What about caricature?

[Supreme2k]

...getting sued is still no fun and it can definitely be costly even if you win.

That is, if it even gets to court (especially with an obvious case like South Park).

[adam]

Freedom of speech is NEVER a defense to slander or libel. These are unprotected forms of speech.

That sucks. People who put themselves in the limelight deserve ridicule, in my books. What about caricature?

Well putting yourself in the limelight is what qualifies you as a "public persona" which adds the actual malice requirement to slander or libel which is VERY hard to prove. Its not enough to show that someone said a lie that damaged your reputation. You now have to show that the reason they said it was specifically to cause damage to your reputation. The truth is that generally very little in the Constitution applies to private entities. It is mainly a limitation on Government action.

As for caricature... Anything that conveys a message is considered speech and thus can qualify as slander or libel if it meets the requirements.